Wednesday, November 26, 2008
We Hate Innovation
Keith Stuart, at The Guardian, holds the mirror up to journalists. You know how we complain about a never-ending supply of clones and sequels, and how we want innovation? Especially journalists?
We may be lying to ourselves. The catalyst in this case is the genre-breaking Mirror's Edge, a new release which I haven't played yet, either.
Do Game Reviewers Really Understand Innovation?
Stuart pleads, "What does it mean for games criticism, if we can't appreciate visionary moments, because of these weird little checklists of gameplay qualities, constructed and adhered to with near-autistic fervour?"
Stuart pleads, "What does it mean for games criticism, if we can't appreciate visionary moments, because of these weird little checklists of gameplay qualities, constructed and adhered to with near-autistic fervour?"
Leigh Alexander adds her own commentary (twice!) on this subject at Sexy VideoGameLand:
This Headline Will Not Pun On 'Faith' and
Mon Petit Pont Faible Obscurci Dans Le Brouillard
Arguments raged about whether or not poor execution should be excused in the name of attempted innovation. She brings up several excellent points (at the risk of, she notes in the second article, obscuring the key ones). She suggests that as bad as underweighting innovation may be among many journalists, many are just as guilty of overweighting innovation in their reviews. She notes that while the industry has come to use the metacritic composite score as a key indicator of the quality of a release, that is not the point of reviews.
She writes:
"...The primary function of a review is not to educate its creator; it is not a report card, although the rise of Metacritic scores as a barometer of industry behavior creates that side-effect. Nor is a review a control mechanism by which a few writers can influence the trends of the industry by elevating some traits and diminishing others according to their personal taste. Perhaps obviously, the purpose of a review is to try and tell consumers whether or not they would enjoy a game."Another interesting note she makes is the anecdotal evidence that it is the most hardcore gamers who seem most unhappy with Mirror's Edge, while she has received reports of "a raft of approval for the title that comes uniquely from people who rarely play video games. They think it's fun, they think it's different, and they feel it was worth their money."
I think it's a real issue. I also think that it's pointless to fight against human nature. People don't like to move too far out of their comfort zone. So it makes sense that only those who are already out of their comfort zone (playing a videogame when they aren't active gamers) embrace those kinds of differences more readily than core gamers.
I think about television series. If a TV series changes too much from season to season, former viewers leave. If a TV series doesn't change enough from season to season, it gets stale, and former viewers leave. There's a sweet spot in there somewhere. People want "familiar, but different."
Which is an enormous suck if you are trying to do something outside of the stupid little boxes that only exist because of the legacy lack of creativity in the industry. Our FPS games still use controls derived from Wolfenstein 3D - which was released in 1991 - and heaven help you if you try and stray from it as a designer. For a great case in point, one of my first favorite indie games was Orbz, published by Garage Games. It was - to me - incredibly fresh and innovative (yet simple!). But the controls were immediately familiar to me, due to their resemblance to first-person shooters. It's just that you shot... uh, yourself... as a ball. Now, I don't know that FPS fans were the target audience for the game, but in my case, it worked very well.
The trick is also to find that "Sweet Spot" in your game - make it fresh and interesting and a LITTLE outside the comfort zone of your true audience (the ones who will really buy your game, not the ones who make all the stink), but still comfortable and familiar enough to make them feel at home.
Labels: Biz, Game Design
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:47 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I constantly have Jeff Vogel's article on my mind. The why he hates RPGs, the points he made were very valid.
"familiar, but different"
Well put! And it fits several aspects:
- player likes racing game? try to sell him another one!
- player likes this rpg? produce expansion packs with a minimum of new content!
- player likes control scheme? produce a game with a similar scheme!
- player likes 10 hour game? produce an eight hour game (cheaper)!
etc. ad nauseam
Well put! And it fits several aspects:
- player likes racing game? try to sell him another one!
- player likes this rpg? produce expansion packs with a minimum of new content!
- player likes control scheme? produce a game with a similar scheme!
- player likes 10 hour game? produce an eight hour game (cheaper)!
etc. ad nauseam
Hey, it works, doesn't it?
I'm one of those people who probably overweights innovation - but hey, I'm a biased indie.
Yeah, Jeff's article was kinda painful - partly from striking home so well. I've found myself in that same boat a few times. And I LOVE RPGs. Maybe I am just too jaded - I need something to shake me up from the get-go and tell me it's not just another RPG.
I'm one of those people who probably overweights innovation - but hey, I'm a biased indie.
Yeah, Jeff's article was kinda painful - partly from striking home so well. I've found myself in that same boat a few times. And I LOVE RPGs. Maybe I am just too jaded - I need something to shake me up from the get-go and tell me it's not just another RPG.
I'd say I'm a fan of innovation, but only if the innovation occurs in an otherwise interesting gameworld and context.
A great example of innovation is the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. HL2 is a good shooter without it, but with the gravity gun it becomes truly original -- toying with Combine soldiers becomes a joy and never a chore.
Some examples of great innovations applied not-so-well are both Portal and Braid. Both games put an innovative tool in the player's toolbox that makes him totally restructure how he perceives and interacts with the gameworld -- outstanding so far. Unfortunately, both Portal and Braid are PUZZLE GAMES. Some people dig that sort of thing, but I can't stand it. Portal and Braid both became tiresome to me after a couple of hours, meaning (for me, at least) that their great innovations were rendered impotent due to the aggravating context in which they were placed.
If Portal's portal gun and Braid's time-shifting had been placed in an action game like Half-Life 2, I would have really appreciated them. And vice versa: HL2's gravity gun would have been meaningless had its only purpose been to throw blocks around to open doors or something equally banal.
A great example of innovation is the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. HL2 is a good shooter without it, but with the gravity gun it becomes truly original -- toying with Combine soldiers becomes a joy and never a chore.
Some examples of great innovations applied not-so-well are both Portal and Braid. Both games put an innovative tool in the player's toolbox that makes him totally restructure how he perceives and interacts with the gameworld -- outstanding so far. Unfortunately, both Portal and Braid are PUZZLE GAMES. Some people dig that sort of thing, but I can't stand it. Portal and Braid both became tiresome to me after a couple of hours, meaning (for me, at least) that their great innovations were rendered impotent due to the aggravating context in which they were placed.
If Portal's portal gun and Braid's time-shifting had been placed in an action game like Half-Life 2, I would have really appreciated them. And vice versa: HL2's gravity gun would have been meaningless had its only purpose been to throw blocks around to open doors or something equally banal.
Hmm,... thinking about it, I guess I don't like innovation - certainly not just because it's innovative, at least. I mean, I would have been eager to buy a Fallout 3 that was identical in gameplay to the first two. And I'd love to see a new X-COM: UFO Defense with just new graphics and battle terrains. But then, maybe that's because of my age.
On the other hand, I had trouble playing Civilization IV, because it seemed like I'd played the game before (over and over again, since I consider Civ II to be the best computer game of all time). I guess I need SOMETHING new, but in an RPG at least, it just has to be a new story, and new territory to explore. I'm not going to value innovation for the sake of innovation, but only if it makes for good gameplay.
I might add that most reviews DON'T tell me what I need to know about a game, which is primarily the game mechanics. I'm terrible at 'real-time' combat, and I don't like first person shooters. Despite my incompetence, I can enjoy some games (the Elder Scrolls games, Mount&Blade, etc.), at least at low levels, but others (like Privateer, as I recall) are completely beyond me. The MOST important thing a reviewer can tell me is the precise nature of the gameplay. So often, that's hardly mentioned at all.
On the other hand, I had trouble playing Civilization IV, because it seemed like I'd played the game before (over and over again, since I consider Civ II to be the best computer game of all time). I guess I need SOMETHING new, but in an RPG at least, it just has to be a new story, and new territory to explore. I'm not going to value innovation for the sake of innovation, but only if it makes for good gameplay.
I might add that most reviews DON'T tell me what I need to know about a game, which is primarily the game mechanics. I'm terrible at 'real-time' combat, and I don't like first person shooters. Despite my incompetence, I can enjoy some games (the Elder Scrolls games, Mount&Blade, etc.), at least at low levels, but others (like Privateer, as I recall) are completely beyond me. The MOST important thing a reviewer can tell me is the precise nature of the gameplay. So often, that's hardly mentioned at all.
I once asked Mark Frohnmayer (Tribes, Marble Blast) when he was at Garage Games who his target audience was for a particular game. I loved his answer. He said "I always make my games for myself".
Orbz was made for me by me. I will admit that we were influenced a little bit by the casual game market, but only insofar as we kept the mantra "keep it simple".
My influences for designing Orbz came from all of the time I spent playing the LMCTF mod of Quake 2. Quick rounds, simple-to-understand gameplay, powerups, and "big air".
And best of all - you could drink a beer while playing! Gotta love simple one-handed controls.
My point? If you are an indie developer, you really should be making games for yourself, and if that hits some target demographic that wants to buy your game, then great. You'll never please everyone, you'll likely rarely please a hardcore gamer who is not comfortable playing anything but one of the three top genres.
But if you target yourself, it's likely there are a bunch of people out there just like you. Your challenge is to simply get them to find your game.
Post a Comment
Orbz was made for me by me. I will admit that we were influenced a little bit by the casual game market, but only insofar as we kept the mantra "keep it simple".
My influences for designing Orbz came from all of the time I spent playing the LMCTF mod of Quake 2. Quick rounds, simple-to-understand gameplay, powerups, and "big air".
And best of all - you could drink a beer while playing! Gotta love simple one-handed controls.
My point? If you are an indie developer, you really should be making games for yourself, and if that hits some target demographic that wants to buy your game, then great. You'll never please everyone, you'll likely rarely please a hardcore gamer who is not comfortable playing anything but one of the three top genres.
But if you target yourself, it's likely there are a bunch of people out there just like you. Your challenge is to simply get them to find your game.
Links to this post:
<< Home
